By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw
The final report of the three year global project by Fairfax Media and University of Wollongong colleague Julie Posetti (@julieposetti) comparing international approaches to protecting sources has been released by UNESCO.
As I foreshadowed earlier, the impressive study tracks, assesses and compares protective legal frameworks like shield laws over the 2007-2015 period, and recommends new measures for protection of journalists and their sources.
The report acknowledges the enormous benefits to journalism harnessed from the Internet and Web 2.0 communications, but homes in on the challenges of the privacy and safety of journalistic sources. Mass surveillance, data retention and expanded national security laws all stand to erode the integrity of the journalist-whistleblower relationship.
The publication is available here.
The Posetti study draws on surveys and long form interviews involving nearly 200 international experts from the fields of law, journalism, digital communications and civil society organisations.
Academics from Australia (Posetti and UoW colleague Marcus O’Donnell), Brazil and China contributed, along with 11 research assistants from a range of countries.
I was honored to serve on the eight-member international advisory panel.
The report’s key recommendations for nations were:
- Legislate for source protection;
- Review national laws on surveillance, anti-terrorism, data retention, and access to telecommunications records;
- Co-operate with journalists’ and media freedom organisations to produce guidelines for prosecutors and police officers, and training materials for judges on the right of journalists not to disclose their sources;
- Develop guidelines for public authorities and private service providers concerning the protection of the confidentiality of journalists’ sources in the context of the interception; or disclosure of computer data and traffic data of computer networks; and
- Apply source protection regimes and defined exceptions in a gender-sensitive way.
Its main recommendations for journalists were:
- Engage with digital issues impacting on source confidentiality protection, and actively campaign for laws and rules that provide adequate protection;
- Explain to the public what is at stake in the protection of source confidentiality, especially in the digital age;
- Ensure that sources are aware of the digital era threats to confidentiality;
- Consider altering practices – including ‘going back to analogue methods’ when required (recognising this may not always be possible due to international or gender dynamics) – in order to offer a degree of protection to their confidential sources;
- Help audiences become more secure in their own communications, for example explaining how encryption works, and why it is important not to have communications security compromised;
- Consider providing technical advice and training to sources to ensure secure communications, with the assistance of NGOs and representative organisations;
- In the case of media leaders, ensure that they also respect their journalists’ ethical commitment (and in some cases legal obligation) to source confidentiality; and
- In the case of media owners, ensure that their journalists, and freelancers who contribute investigative reports, have access to the appropriate tools and training needed to ensure that they are able to offer the most secure channels of digital communication possible to their sources.
Related:
- Julie Posetti’s commentaries on the report in The Conversation and The Age.
- My piece from 2015 in The Conversation : How surveillance is wrecking journalist-source confidentiality
© Mark Pearson 2017
Disclaimer: While I write about media law and ethics, nothing here should be construed as legal advice. I am an academic, not a lawyer. My only advice is that you consult a lawyer before taking any legal risks.
journlaw 